JoeB131
Diamond Member
The GOP must not concede to Obama power over the debt ceiling.
Actually, they should eliminate the concept of a debt ceiling... instead of going through this dance once a year.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The GOP must not concede to Obama power over the debt ceiling.
.
If our "leaders" (ugh, I always throw up in my mouth a little bit when I use that term) had any self-respect or character whatsoever, we would have a Balanced Budget Amendment so that both fucking parties would have to justify their taxing (or lack of) and spending (or lack of).
Self respect, character? Not holding my breath.
.
.
If our "leaders" (ugh, I always throw up in my mouth a little bit when I use that term) had any self-respect or character whatsoever, we would have a Balanced Budget Amendment so that both fucking parties would have to justify their taxing (or lack of) and spending (or lack of).
Self respect, character? Not holding my breath.
.
To be fair, Newt Gingrich tried to put one of those in. And Clinton and the Democrats shot him down.
.
If our "leaders" (ugh, I always throw up in my mouth a little bit when I use that term) had any self-respect or character whatsoever, we would have a Balanced Budget Amendment so that both fucking parties would have to justify their taxing (or lack of) and spending (or lack of).
Self respect, character? Not holding my breath.
.
.
If our "leaders" (ugh, I always throw up in my mouth a little bit when I use that term) had any self-respect or character whatsoever, we would have a Balanced Budget Amendment so that both fucking parties would have to justify their taxing (or lack of) and spending (or lack of).
Self respect, character? Not holding my breath.
.
I think term limits on the critters would also help get more done per term.
Oh yeah and the critters shouldn't be able to exempt themselves from any laws either.
Did you vote for this failure?
I don't think that any politician is ever 100% successful in doing everything they set out to do. A number of politicians who are beloved by their constituents are viewed by history as abject failures and those who are reviled by the electorate are later lauded as great men. Lincoln, the first Republican president, was that kind of politician. Both North and South blamed him for the Civil War and the death and destruction it caused. Plus he took all that land away from the plantation owners and gave it to slaves.
This is exactly the kind of things that today's Republicans are calling "re-distribution of wealth". The biggest re-distribution of wealth in the history of the world has taken place in the United States during my lifetime. And it's all been unward. The working class now live in poverty and the middle class are struggling. In the meantime there are more billionaires in the United States, per capita, than in any other country in the world, and this all took place during a thirty year period of cutting taxes combined with runaway spending started by Ronald Reagan in 1980.
A capitalist society requires a large, economically vibrant middle class in order to have a willing market for its consumer goods. This is Economics 101. The number of poor is rising not because they won't work, but because their wages have, in real terms, not gone up in 30 years. I do taxes for have a long-time family friend who is making the same hourly rate he was making in 1990, when his daughter was born. He had a great job with a future in an expanding company and was in line for a promotion.
When my friend graduated from college, labour forecasts in his field basically said that there were extreme labour shortages in his chosen trade and he would have employment for life. With a family to support, he wasn't in a position to go back to school when NAFTA was signed and most of the jobs in his trade moved to Mexico. His employer, who had taken out big loans to finance his ill-timed expansion, went of out business. The remaining jobs in his field were paying half what he had been making. His wife went back to work. He finally got back to making his 1990 wages in 2008, and hasn't had a raise since. His story is not unique.
In 1990, we were both earning about the same amount. We're both still in the same fields today today as we were in 1990, albeit we both changed employers more than once. Today, I make twice as much as I did in 1990 and more than four times what I was making in 1985. And that doesn't include billable hours and bonuses, which, are nearly as much as I was making in 1985. My friend works longer hours than I do, and there's no air conditioning in summer.
Not everyone can or should be working in only the highest paying fields. We need trades people to repair our homes, our cars, our goods, and people to work in agriculture, and food processing, and to make our clothes. We need people to work in stores, in restaurants, and fast food joints. We need civic employees to clear our roads and pick up our garbage, but they need to be paid living wages, not the least amount possible. We need to be hiring people in our OWN communities and countries to do all of that work, we need to make our own stuff, giving employment to our neighbours so we can all rise together in dignity.
I could never vote for anyone who refers to people like my friend, and the people I encounter in my everyday life, in the manner which Romney did in his 47% speech.
[Now...time for your education.
1. "The working class now live in poverty and the middle class are struggling."
You couldn't be more wrong.
.
The America our founders created has been the Camelot of the modern world. America of past days will always live in people's hearts as a land that was ruled by a deep sense of concern Americans had for each other, where the Senate was run by kindly spirits who were concerned for each other regardless of party, and ideas were presented to be voted on in a spirit of knowing the vote would be based on the decisions of conscientious people whose thoughts were for the good of everyone here.The American Patriots Have Lost to the Globalists.
1. It follows logically that those of us who believe that America is exceptional, in its history, its accomplishments, and its singularity, would revel in same, and desire to perpetuate it...
....but those who despise America, believe that America was founded by racists and slaveholders, that it is an imperialist nation, that 35 million Americans go hungry, that it invades countries for corporate profits, and that it is largely racist and xenophobic, wish to transform it.
These, the Leftists, wish for global governance .the end of our sovereignty.
2. Flying under the radar in this election is the fact that it ensconced progressives and that doesnt just mean Democrats, in charge. Listen to them speak:
a.Strobe Talbot, president of the Brookings Institution, has written that he welcomed super-national political authority, saying "In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn't such a great idea after all."
b.Harold Koh, chief legal adviser of the State Department, and the legal authority of the government on foreign legal policy, states that the Supreme Court "must play a key role in coordinating U.S. domestic constitutional rules with rules of foreign and international law," The only way for the Supreme Court to do that "coordinating" is to subordinate the real American Constitution to ever-evolving rules of foreign and international law.
c.Richard Haass, Republican, president of the Council on Foreign Relations states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function . sovereignty must be redefined if states are to cope with globalization.
d. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg defended the use of foreign law by American judges,...American hostility to the consideration of foreign law, she said, is a passing phase. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/us/12ginsburg.html
3. When we consider the abrupt changes in Europe, we should be concerned about the lack of consensus in our own country regarding. The following from a speech by Jeremy Rabkin, professor of law, George Mason School of Law, June 5, 2009 at Washington, D.C. on the importance of constitutional sovereignty....
a. Had we ratified the Kyoto Protocol we would have delegated the authority over huge areas of public policy to international authorities, i.e. the lost of constitutional treaty making powers. But the Obama administration is aiming to negotiate a new treaty along those lines.
b. There is the thinking that 'human rights law' transcends the laws of particular countries, even those pertaining to national defense. But who should set the standards- especially against terrorists?
c. People who expect to retain the benefits of sovereignty- such as defense and protection of rights, without constitutional discipline, without retaining responsibility for their own legal system, are putting all their faith in words or in the idea that as long as we say nice things about humanity, we will be safe. Sounds as good as incantations and witchcraft.
d. In Medellin vs. Texas (2008), the International Court of Justice ruled that Texas could not execute a convicted murderer. The Supreme Court ruled that decisions of the International Court of Justice are not binding domestic law. The vote was 6 to 3 (Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg). How long before the Supreme Court throws out the Constitution?
e. In May, 2009 Spanish judges are boldly declaring their authority to prosecute high-ranking government officials in the United States, but our government has not protested this nonsense, akin to piracy, and has, in fact, accepted an internationalist atmosphere which makes this sort of thing seem plausible.
6. Tragically, this is the position Obama voters have created.
Unable to judge the future, these voters, these Brutuses, have left the rest of us in the position of one day saying...
..'Forgive them, they knew not what they did.'
[Now...time for your education.
1. "The working class now live in poverty and the middle class are struggling."
You couldn't be more wrong.
.
Don't you frequently claim that the so-called war on poverty has been a failure?
Doesn't the above prove it's been a success, by your own measures?